Now, check this out. NYU political science professor Mark Kleiman is using the term in the same way Palin did to attack Trump and — of all people — me: "Defending the Indefensible: Ann Althouse on Trump’s Blood Libel."
How embarrassing for Kleiman. He must be very mad. What's he mad about? Let's jump past the padding — is anyone amused by trite corn like "IQ... above room temperature" and "pundits gotta pund"? — to the 6th paragraph:
After lots of other commenters – but not Althouse – criticized Trump for that outrageous blood libel, Trump tried to defend himself by pointing to a Breitbart “news story” that points out what everyone knows: that some of the opposition to the hideous, genocidal Alawite regime in Syria headed by the Assad family consisted of Sunni extremists, some of them affiliated with al Qaeda or ISIS. Inevitably, then some of the military aid the U.S. gave the opposition wound up going to bad guys, which is why the Obama Administration had to draw back from a full-out attempt to get rid of Assad....Okay, so Kleiman asserts that "everyone knows" our aid to the rebels went, in part, to al Qaeda and ISIS. That's a huge deal! But he's upset that Trump gave some air to the notion that Obama is not committed to American interests. Trump has been attacked for that insinuation.
What's he got against me? He quotes this of mine, which is criticism of the media:
It’s ridiculous that the media that support Hillary merely attack Trump for pointing at stories that suggest that Hillary/Obama had bad judgment, didn’t know what they were doing, or worse. The media have left the opening for Trump to take these easy shots, and now, when he does, they seem to think it’s enough to say Trump isn’t nice or Trump throws out inconclusive evidence and invites us to think for ourselves and ask questions.Really, what is Kleiman so mad about? Maybe he's mad that he can't get his mind around what happened in the Middle East in the last few years. It's painful to think about. And it seems that he'd like everybody with any credibility — including me, because I'm a law professor — to direct all energies into Trump hating. But that's exactly what I resist. I don't even like Trump, but I hate the demand to hate him. That's not my beat. I'm looking at other things.
The effort to intimidate me into hating Trump provokes me into defending him. And he's less "indefensible" than your use of the term "blood libel," Mark.
পোস্টগুলি
৬৯টি মন্তব্য:
I think he's just insulting upwards, to use an old term.
Hillary voters have little else. Her campaign is now "I am not Trump!"
Even Peggy Noonan thinks it will work.
Hillary Clinton has been given a great gift by Donald Trump. She hadn’t been able to explain the purpose or meaning of her candidacy. She tried out various themes and slogans, but nothing ever took or seemed real. Everything came down to I’m Hillary and I deserve it. But now she has it, in only three words: “I’m not Trump.” I may have narcissistic personality disorder, but he’s got it worse and in spades. If I’m corrupt, he’s more corrupt. I have poor judgment? Everything he says is poor judgment. He endangers us!
I don't think ti will work but I guess we will see. As far as I know, Trump is not indicted. That might make a difference.
The fundamental problem with all these guys is that in order to think clearly about the Mideast they have to face the fact that George W. Bush and Dick Cheney were ultimately right and Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton were entirely wrong, and their entire being is so wound up in the reverse that they find this just impossible to contemplate. Foolishness ensues.
Once again, another example of the inability of liberals to perceive irony or their own hypocrisy. They're all just so full of hate that blinds them to reality.
The right seeks converts, ...
"The fundamental problem with all these guys is that in order to think clearly about the Mideast they have to face the fact that..."
It's more than just about GWB and Cheney. There's a whole sociological framework that depends on the fact that people are inherently rational and wanting shared dialogue, and that shared dialogue will heal all wounds.
So, to pursue that shared dialogue it is assumed we just have to identify all the grievances and provocations that lead to feelings of desperation, thus violence.
When in fact some people really just want to kill other people because they are other people. And people of all religions and races are still the same sort of people who do this.
"I think he's just insulting upwards, to use an old term."
Yeah, I know, and I wouldn't have taken the bait, but I remembered Sarah Palin and thought it was worth pointing that out.
The poli sci prof wrote, "Just to be clear: there’s no evidence whatsoever that Clinton and Obama had bad judgement, didn’t know what they were doing, “or worse.” "
There is a overwhelming evidence that the Obama-Clinton Administration had both bad judgment and was incompetent. Look at the results. Millions of people are displaced from their homes. ISIS has killed thousands in the most brutal fashion. The entire Middle East is in flames. Iran is running Iraq. And, of course, the Iran deal is the worst thing since Munich.
How could the Washington Monthly publish such nonsense? No editors?
Looking at Kleiman's œuvre, it seems the boy has soured on Trump: link. Perhaps he's been jilted somehow?
I'm wondering, is "soured on Trump" part of the coming "deference cascade" for Hillary!?
ricebowls
I would link to a cached version of the page to avoid giving them traffic.
His last piece there was titled "Better to Remain Silent and Be Thought a Fool…" so he knew that was an option but instead chose to remove all doubt.
If this guy gets in a pissing contest with AA, he gonna end up soaking wet.
TKO Althouse 30 seconds into round 1.
And we learn that the way into Althouse's heart is to evoke sympathy in her for a good hearted and courageous man standing up under attack.
Scot Walker did it. But Trump is one in a million to pull that off while harshly attacking Megyn Kelly in public.
This is an interesting year.
The middle east is a humanitarian tragedy. Obama has screwed everything he possibly could up. But he followed the progressive playbook.
It is really America's fault after all. Not Obama's fault, America's. I guarantee history books will be leaving Obama's name out of the descriptions of the causes of the current "Arab Spring."
I tried to read the article; got as far as:
"The current case involves Donald Trump’s strongly implied but weasel-worded claim that Barack Obama is an ISIS supporter or sympathizer. That of course is not merely absurd but disgusting."
Oh, please... Someone in the media thinks a Republican is disgusting? Sounds like the start of every political opinion piece ever written in this millennium. Why bother reading any further?
"I don't even like Trump, but I hate the demand to hate him. That's not my beat. I'm looking at other things."
Which is what makes you far more readable than any hack at the NYT. Thank you!
The effort to intimidate me into hating Trump provokes me into defending him.
Me, too.
Some of the opposition to Trump, from people who doubtless consider themselves responsible and clear-headed is unhinged.
Check this from the Miami Herald:
"Trump pours gas on flames of hatred"
. . .
"In a Monday speech, Mr. Trump painted a false picture of a nation infiltrated by waves of unscreened Muslim refugees and immigrants, who, abetted by Democrats, are destroying American values and threatening the public. Among other things, he chillingly accused Muslim Americans of complicity with terrorists: “The Muslims have to work with us,” he said. “They know what’s going on. They know that [the Orlando shooter] was bad. They knew the people in San Bernardino were bad. But you know what? They didn’t turn them in. And you know what? We had death, and destruction.”"
The Orlando killer's Muslim wife knew what he was going to do and said nothing. Was she properly screened when she was admitted? How about the Female Muslim immigrant who was part of the terrorist San Bernardino kill team? The San Bernardino killers were also aided by a Muslim who, of course, said nothing.
The Miami Herald also includes this quizzical statement: "The following shouldn’t have to be repeated, but most American Muslims are as patriotic and law-abiding as most American Christians"
I just can't parse this. Is the writer saying that American Muslims are the same or more patriotic and law-abiding (however measured) than American Christians are? Why qualify "American Christians" with the word "most"?
http://www.hawaiitribune-herald.com/commentary/their-views/trump-pours-gas-flames-hatred
chickelit said...
Looking at Kleiman's œuvre, it seems the boy has soured on Trump: link. Perhaps he's been jilted somehow?
from Chickelit's Klaiman link (April of this year -- just over two months ago).
Now, as Colombo would say, there’s just one thing. None of these policies could be enacted except over the dead body of today’s Chamber-of-Commerce-and-Koch-dominated Republican party. Fortunately, Donald Trump may have a solution to that problem.
But that's exactly what I resist. I don't even like Trump, but I hate the demand to hate him. That's not my beat. I'm looking at other things... The effort to intimidate me into hating Trump provokes me into defending him.
Bingo!
Michael K said...Hillary voters have little else. Her campaign is now 'I am not Trump!
.
.
.
I don't think [it] will work but I guess we will see. As far as I know, Trump is not indicted. That might make a difference.
It's a risky strategy. Obama ran in 2008 on "I am not Bush" (but Bush wasn't running).
Trump could easily run on "I am not Obama" (he already sort of is). To the extent that Hillary insists that she is an Obama third term, she makes his work easier.
If only Hillary had the cajones to cut her ties to Obama, she could advance. But she doesn't and will not.
"The effort to intimidate me into hating Trump provokes me into defending him."
Provokes you to defend Trump ?!? That's all you've been doing the last 6/7/8 mos. ie rationalizing/apologizing for Trump.
Like you need encouragement to defend Trump ~ too funny!
I defended you, sorta.
Your premise that Althouse is a conservative does not bode well for your thought processes.
@Shilho: Comments like your 12:39 one only make me glad that Althouse is the blogger here and that you're just a little man in spacesuit surrounded by a vacuum.
shiloh said...
. . .
Like you need encouragement to defend Trump ~ too funny!
I don't know about Althouse, but I defend trump when I think the attack is unfair. I would defend Hillary if I thought that the attack was unfair. I think the idea that she or her henchmen killed Vince Foster is unhinged. There are far simpler explanations for the shenanigans surrounding his death (the usual clintonian tendency to lie when the truth sounds better, to begin with). I think the Obama is a secret Muslim people are not using evidence-based reasoning, ditto the people who believe that Obama was born in Kenya. A lot of the fringey conspiracy stuff reminds of the old claim that Elvis was still alive because his death certificate had a typo on it.
Is "blood libel" the new "Hitler"? It used to mean accusations of drinking the blood of children. Now, apparently, it means saying stuff we don't like.
Trump tried to defend himself by pointing to a Breitbart “news story” that points out what everyone knows: that some of the opposition to the hideous, genocidal Alawite regime in Syria headed by the Assad family consisted of Sunni extremists, some of them affiliated with al Qaeda or ISIS.
So how exactly is this different than Bush's widely repudiated policy of removing a genocidal (Swamp Arabs anybody?) Ba'athist dictator, (yes Saddam and Assad are both Ba'athists) in Iraq?
Inevitably, then some of the military aid the U.S. gave the opposition wound up going to bad guys, which is why the Obama Administration had to draw back from a full-out attempt to get rid of Assad.
Well yeah, inevitably, which anybody could see coming, right? which is why the Obama Administration had to draw back So something that was inevitable happened that forced Obama and Hillary to change their policies? If I move my knight their, I will lose my queen, let me move my knight... Ooops! Son of a bitch, I lost my queen! Then, after providing the evidence of bad judgement, he throws in this:
Just to be clear: there’s no evidence whatsoever that Clinton and Obama had bad judgement, didn’t know what they were doing, “or worse.” The evidence is that they were in a situation, and knew they were in a situation, where the key local opponents of a genocidal monster were themselves hideously awful, and faced a difficult choice. And Trump is lying (again). And Althouse is helping (still).
Actually, they had the same choice that Bush had, TO STAY THE FUCK OUT OF OTHER PEOPLE'S MESSES! That they couldn't do it, after resoundingly winning not just the presidency, but both houses of Congress based on a promise to do just that, they made the wrong choice. Bad judgement.
(Formally, it’s no different from the problem Carter and Reagan faced in trying to dislodge the Soviet-backed Afghan government in 1979-83 by backing the mujaheddin resistance, of which the Taliban was an important element.)
Right. A sovereign nation is invaded by an foreign empire that has, in fact, invaded several other sovereign nations in recent memory, is the same thing as going in and interfering in a civil war. I love the attempt at academic language though. What a fool.
Blood libel ought to get a menstruation tag.
“It’s in the quiet moments when you see why he does this. For Adolf, it’s always been about kids,” a narrator explains.
- 1933 Chancellor election
"I don't even like Trump, but I hate the demand to hate him. That's not my beat. I'm looking at other things."
dit-to.
When you examine the political history of the other two candidates my response is," you maybe shouldn't be throwing stones."
This guy, and the people he is writing to, are in serious denial. Obama, and ultimately Hillary, we're so convinced that Bush/Cheney had screwed up, that they rushed in to change things, and screwed up royally. One thing that they apparently didn't quite get was that one of the basic fault lines through the area was the Sunni/Shia line. Iraq under Saddam Hussein was majority Shia ruled by a Sunni minority. Syria essentially has the opposite (not exactly, but close, esp when it comes to alliances). Fiercest fighting in Iraq during our war there was in Sunni dominated Anbar Province, next door to Sunni dominated Syria. And, indeed, this is the area now controlled by ISIS. So, of course, the Obama Administration pulled US troops out of Iraq before their Shia dominated army could adequately control their restive a Sunni Anbar. Meanwhile, where did the more militant Sunni factions from Iraq go after being pushed out by the Surge? Many into neighboring Syria, which probably helped the Sunni majority revolt against their Alowite (quasi-Shia) rulers.
Meanwhile Clinton/Obama had helped push the ArabbSpring in Libya and Egypt. Why did the Administration actively help push out Quadaffi from Lybia? He really wasn't meddling that much any more by sponsoring terrorism throughout the area, after his coming to Allah moment when the Bush Administration told him he was next, after Afghanistan and Iraq, if he didn't mend his ways. He did. In retrospect, our support of the rebels there was feckless, or worse. Was part of that a result of Sidney Blumenthal trying to make money there, and having Hillary's ear? Was it the oil (and the pay-to-play Clinton foreign policy)? Regardless, Clnton and Obama have their fingerprints all over the failed nation state that used to be Lybia. Next door, in Egypt, Muberrek had to go, but they essentially pushed the Muslim Brotherhood into power. The group from which all of the Sunni terrorism groups were descended from, and, maybe importantly, the group where the parents of Hillary's closest aid (Huma) were leaders. That didn't last, thanks to their well documented bloody version of fundamental Islam.
So,Nehemiah the Arab Spring seemed to take hold in Syria, Obama/Hillary tried to help out. Arguably, it wouldn't have exploded if they hadn't been trying to sabatogue the Bush victory in Iraq and if Lybia and Egypt hadn't already gone up in flames (thanks to help from Clinton/Obama). But, we didn't go in there, just armed the non-terrorist linked Sunnis, which wasn't enough. And who have now been marginalized, and we lost the power and respect in the area that Bush had built by this and drawing lines that were never enforced. Russians are now backing the Syrian regime, and we have little power, but are getting the refugees (as is Europe).
Total screwup by Obama and Clinton.
Althouse is on a roll. Not just here, but ever since Trump got into the race. I bet her traffic is up.
Sorry - in my last post, I suggested that Syria was Sunni dominated. It wasn't. It is Sunni majority, but was controlled by a Shi'a offshoot. And, hence the ongoing long term alliance between Iran and Syria, and is a good part of how Iran has been able to funnel so many arms, and, in particular, the thousands of missles to the northern border of Israel.
We all know that if Obama had nuked Assad he would be praised by the same press that defends his dithering and half measures. And if he had sided with Assad they would still find a way to praise him. Just like we see them gloss over the burning wreckage of foreign policy during Clinton's SOS turn...and praise her vast "experience." For some reason Donald Trump's presence seems to disable progressive presscritter's ability to be self aware. They write things that only a fool would believe or like the Post simply make shit up.
There is serious disturbance in the Force!
If only Hillary had the cajones to cut her ties to Obama, she could advance. But she doesn't and will not.
@chicklit, ten seconds after Hillary cuts her ties to Obama she's under indictment. And she knows it.
I appologize for some of the confusion in my long post above. I am used to typing my responses on a computer, and am accurate enough that big mistakes are few. But this morning I have been using my iPad, where I do fat finger the keys a bit, and this is compounded by their spell checker which just switches words for what it thinks you want to say. Making it worse, it assumes that a blank means that you accept its choices, and don't just want a blank because you are at the end of a word. I have a love/hate with Apple products, and their spell check is part of the hate side.
On the intellectual front, Kleiman takes no account of the difference in the way men and women go off the rails.
Orlando has a ribbon tree now, so the narrative has run its course.
Probably a shortening of Kleinman.
I think the Obama is a secret Muslim people are not using evidence-based reasoning
@Terry, I see that you've fallen for the media's fallacy of the false alternative. Recall that both Obama and his principal advisor Valerie Jarrett spent a number of their childhood years in Muslim countries. Obama doesn't have to be a Muslim himself to have a view of that religion that is colored by his childhood experiences. He and Valerie may believe that their experiences -- over fifty years out of date! -- give them a unique insight into Islam. I think they're wrong.
"I would defend Hillary if I thought that the attack was unfair."
Bullshit, you're here because you enjoy the coziness of a 95/5 con echo chamber!
"Althouse is on a roll. Not just here, but ever since Trump got into the race. I bet her traffic is up."
Ya think. Why have the media, especially FoxNews, CNN, MSNBC, etc. been covering Trump 24/7 since day one? Ratings.
This is not rocket science ~ supply and demand!
What's-his-face casually applies the phrase "her hatred of liberals and liberalism" to Althouse's political opinions.
That's one of the most disgusting habits of really fanatical left-wing demagogues. They arrogate to themselves the right to diagnose their opponents' motives, they debase political debates with slurs against character, and they attempt to put their opponents' arguments outside the acceptable pale by introducing schlock armchair psychological diagnoses.
My theory about why Obama and Clinton screwed up so badly in the Middle East is that it reflects almost a fatal interaction between their respective weaknesses. Obama is an unrepentant anti-colonial (Sunni) Islamophile. Hillary is hard working, not real bright, and utterly corrupt. Obama, the affirmative action community organizer, also isn't that bright. And he has a hand's off management style (he would rather be golfing). He is basically lazy. When he would deign to intervene, his decisions would be simplistic and heavily tainted by his anti-colonial Islamophile attitudes. He never spent enough time studying the issues to truly understand what was really happening, didn't hire the best and the brightest, and thought himself the smartest guy in the room, so ignored advice that was contrary to his world view. Hillary, on the other hand is famously paranoid, only trusting long term cronies. So, in the case of Lybia, she listened to Blumenthal instead of the CIA, and I expect that she did similarly with Huma about Egypt. And then there was the money. A lot of Gulf money flowing into the family coffers. And that money bought access - maybe not directly with her, but definitely with her closest advisor - her husband. Notably missing for both of them was putting America first.
Blogger shiloh said...
"I would defend Hillary if I thought that the attack was unfair."
Bullshit, you're here because you enjoy the coziness of a 95/5 con echo chamber!
Those two sentences have nothing to do with each other, Shiloh. One does not contradict the other. I also gave you three samples of me defending Hillary + Obama against unfair attacks.
It's fun to think about all the things we've been told were racist to say against Barack Obama, and then see those same accusers write about Trump.
Blogger Big Mike said...
I think the Obama is a secret Muslim people are not using evidence-based reasoning
@Terry, I see that you've fallen for the media's fallacy of the false alternative. Recall that both Obama and his principal advisor Valerie Jarrett spent a number of their childhood years in Muslim countries.
Then we're agreed. Obama is not a secret Muslim.
Maybe Mark can help us out here by listing all of Obama/Hillary's foreign policy successes. If that list is too long, maybe he can limit it to their most important successes. It shouldn't take long to do.
NYU political science professor Mark Kleiman
The echos in his echo chamber are so loud, he can't even hear his own echo.
"I don't even like Trump, but I hate the demand to hate him. That's not my beat. I'm looking at other things."
dit-to.
I'm with the two of you.
I can't believe Trump may be the GOP nominee. I can't believe it. I don't want him to be president.
But at least if he's awful, he's awful on his own.
If Hillary wins, it gives strength to the whole Social Justice, Safe Space, terrible foreign policy movement of the past 8 years. Which I just can't see being good for America's future.
I agree wth Big Mike about his views of Islam, which is why I used the term Islamophile. I would not be surprised if growing up in an Islamic society in Indonesia, going to an Islamic school there, etc, engendered a belief in him that it was a religion of peace. But I also expect that that the Islam that he grew up in wasn't the Wahabbi brand of fundamentalism that has driven much of the bloodshed of the recent decades. That is a much more stark, brutal, and bloody brand of Islam. When we talk about Muslim violence, terrorism, etc, he can rationally say that that is not the Islam he knows. His is a much kinder and gentler Islam. And he may be right that a majority of the Muslims in the world live a much nicer version of the religion. The problem though is that the heart of Islam is in the deserts of Arabia, both spiritually and financially. He grew up learning about Islam geographically (and spiritually) far from there. Sunni Wahhabi Islam is a harsh religion, for a harsh people, living in a harsh environment.
I was thinking about Hillary shill Miriam's point the other day about Christians having their own problems in terms of tolerance and violence. But most of us never see Christian violence. No one we see in church is going to go off and kill Muslims, gays, abortionists, or even Roman Catholics any more. Probably 99% of the admitted Christians are essentially non-violent in regards to their faith these days, so we see Hillary shill Miriam's attempts at moral equivalence as the ludicrous spin and propaganda that they are. I really do believe that this is the root of Obama's problem with recognizing the reality that Islam in much of the world today is violent, or at least has a lot of violent believers willng to kill for their religion. That wasn't the Islam he grew up in.
Ya think. Why have the media, especially FoxNews, CNN, MSNBC, etc. been covering Trump 24/7 since day one? Ratings.
This is not rocket science ~ supply and demand!
Gee, Big Guy. You are on the verge of a discovery. How about the next logical step ?
Maybe the country is looking for a change from the disastrous Obama/Clinton regime.
How dare anyone insinuate that a person might sympathize and identify with the culture he grew up in?
Every Ivy League edumacated intellectual heavyweight knows that NEVER happens.
And it's just a total coincidence that his top advisor has a similar background. The top person and his top advisor in the executive branch with Muslim backgrounds. What percentage of the population are they again? How statistically likely is this to be a coincidence?
How stupid can you people be to notice facts and evidence and stuff? Just crack open your trusty Critical Theory/Social Justice handbook. All you need to know in one place!
Outcome people hate process people.
Hillary Clinton: love trumps hate
Ann Althouse: resisting the demand to hate trumps doesn't even like
David Begley quoted: The poli sci prof wrote, "Just to be clear: there’s no evidence whatsoever that Clinton and Obama had bad judgement, didn’t know what they were doing, “or worse.” "
The very lack of evidence makes it so.
I have a love/hate with Apple products, and their spell check is part of the hate side.
So Apple actually came up with "Lybia"?
I actually laughed when I got to Kleiman's "but her hatred of liberals and liberalism is so vehement..." in the first paragraph. Why do I care to read his nonsense when he can write something so egregiously stupid? perhaps later on, after work; probably not. Gosh.
"Maybe the country is looking for a change from the disastrous Obama/Clinton regime."
Maybe not ~ Obama's current Gallup job approval 53/44. Highest job approval for any president at this stage of their presidency.
Trump received a record 13.3 million votes in the Republican primaries/caucuses. Indeed, easily defeating the Rep deep bench! This does not equate to the country as the country, according to the latest polls, have Trump with 66 and 70% unfavorables respectively, w/55% saying they would never vote for Trump!
oh btw, Bloomberg has Hillary defeating Trump 49/37.
>
Indeed I get it as cons, especially Althouse cons, hate and despise Obama and Hillary. Shocking!
down from 18 in march, context is important,
actually they should just throw in the towel,
http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2016/06/uncovering_the_biases_in_statelevel_polling_data.html
"down from 18 in march, context is important,"
Again, polls are useless until after the conventions and I will agree it hasn't been a stellar year for polls ie one poll had Hillary winning MI by 20 pts.
Which should give Althouse cons hope as they can "indulge" in that skewed poll nonsense like 4 years ago.
But one reality remains constant ~ Dems systemic electoral college vote advantage as % of minorities continue to increase and register to vote.
'I'm trying really hard to find some sympathy for Hitler or Mussolini because so many bad things have been said about them. I don't consider for a minute that perhaps the bad things people have said about them are true. I just get this compulsion to defend them...'
'Or maybe I'm simply a contrarian, or maybe I feel special when I differ from most people, even if I think those people may have a point. I just like being different, aren't I special and unique, look at my uniqueness! Maybe someone will talk about me!'
'I just need a little more attention, more traffic!'
Who are you quoting, Miriam? That voice in your head again?
6/16/16, 10:05 PM "shared dialogue"
This dialogue theory is completely wrong and has never worked anywhere it has been triedm and can only make thinsg worse.
Liars must be treated as liars.
Ann: Let's jump past the padding — is anyone amused by trite corn like....
This sort of thing can be funny, but it is very poorly executed here and is very much out of place in this sort of essay. My general comedic criticisms:
1. The author immediately went into insults before getting into anything substantial. To put forth an argument that makes the target look like an idiot and then pile on with insults is a tried and true comedic trope. It falls very much into the "it's funny because it is true" category. Starting out with insults without any setup is low-end schoolyard banter and ceases to be amusing after puberty except for those with the lowest brow sense of humor.
2. Putting parentheses inside of parentheses is a good way to confuse the reader and ruin momentum. Apparently the author has never heard of a dash.
3. These sorts of filler gags have their place. If you watch a movie like Airplane!, there is a constant stream of jokes. The thing is the more elaborate skits cannot fill up every moment and if you try they tend to get too long. Still, after building up the audience's laughter from scratch, you do not want to let them back down. It is much easier to keep the audience laughing when they are already laughing. So whenever there is a lull, toss in a short throwaway gag, a bad pun, a visual joke, a surreal moment of insanity, just to keep the audience with you. It may not be as funny as the main bits and it may be barely funny at all, but the audience will find it funny because they are already laughing. Fuel for the fire. Here, the author here has nothing substantial to present, at least as far as comedy goes, so the filler just seems kinda dumb.
There is also the larger problem which is the author has a poor grasp of the subject matter. In comedy this is known as a shallow parody and it rarely works well for people who know the subject. The author does not have the skills to pull it off, nor is it at all appropriate for a political op-ed which begins with the presumption that the author has some knowledge. Otherwise, I could just talk go to the local watering hole for my political news, which will most likely be much more amusing.
As to the term "blood libel," let's be honest. There is an obvious double standard in the politics. We need not discuss that further.
The problem is there is no official guidance of re-purposing phrases like this. "Blood libel" refers to a very specific lie. Is it appropriate to use it in reference to lies that are similar but not the same? I tend to think so if the lie is similar enough. Blaming someone for killing someone else when said someone clearly had nothing to do with it is very much in the same theme. That said, I would be more comfortable of using "blood libel" in referring to the smearing of Palin, who literally had nothing to do with Giffords whatsoever and everyone knows it, than with Trump's accusation. Trump is claiming something that is technically true, though misleading. Obama does have an influence on what happened in Orlando through his diplomatic bungling and PC directives. I would not call Trump's claim to be a "blood libel." I wouldn't say it was accurate either.
"Those two sentences have nothing to do with each other, Shiloh. One does not contradict the other. I also gave you three samples of me defending Hillary + Obama against unfair attacks."
Upon further review I apologize for not giving you the benefit of the doubt. Yes, my reply was a non sequitur.
So used to Althouse con majority's intense hatred of Obama/Hillary that I overreacted and looked foolish re: your post.
Who wouldn't hate an abuser of women, a venal abuser of her power, and a bumbling fool who has caused a massive refugee crisis?
Oh, noble Shiloh, who makes excuse after excuse for his whore.
একটি মন্তব্য পোস্ট করুন